By T. D. Thornton
A federal judge cancelled a July 31 hearing in a lawsuit filed last week by eight Oklahoma horsemen who are trying to get the Horseracing and Safety Integrity Act (HISA) declared unconstitutional after learning that seven of the same plaintiffs last year filed a substantially similar complaint but voluntarily withdrew it three months later.
The judge in the newer case, Charles Goodwin of United States District Court of Oklahoma (Western District), also signed a July 30 court order reassigning the lawsuit to Chief Judge Timothy DeGiusti, the same federal judge who handled the 2023 case.
As in seven previous lawsuits around the country since 2021 that have similarly targeted the HISA Authority and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as defendants, the Oklahoma horsemen in the July 24, 2024, case want declaratory judgments, injunctions, and restraining orders imposed that would invalidate HISA rules and prohibit the HISA Authority, the FTC, and the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) from enforcing the regulations that govern the sport.
The plaintiffs in the new case are Joe Offolter, Danny Caldwell, Elizabeth Butler, Randy Blair, Bryan Hawk, Scott Young, Boyd Caster and Michael Major. All but Butler was among a total of 15 plaintiffs in the 2023 lawsuit that got voluntarily withdrawn.
Judge Goodwin wrote his orders to strike the hearing and reassign the case after receiving a “notice of related case” filed Tuesday by the FTC defendants.
“Like the plaintiffs here, the plaintiffs in that prior case raised two counts challenging (1) the constitutionality of [HISA], and (2) several regulations promulgated under that statute,” the FTC filing stated.
“Specifically, the plaintiffs in both Offolter cases have contended that HISA–which was originally enacted four years ago–and its implementing rules violate the so-called private-nondelegation doctrine as well as the Fourth and Seventh Amendments, and they have challenged the 'Registration Rule' and the 'Enforcement Rule'–which were originally promulgated two years ago–under the Administrative Procedure Act.
“Like the plaintiffs here, plaintiffs in the prior Offolter case also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order shortly after they filed their complaint,” the FTC filing continued. “Chief Judge DeGiusti found that plaintiffs' motion was 'facially insufficient' for a TRO without notice, directed the plaintiffs to 'provide written notice to Defendants' counsel,' and set a briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs then withdrew their motion and voluntarily dismissed their complaint.
“Despite that voluntary dismissal more than a year ago, seven of the same plaintiffs have now refiled a substantially similar case,” the FTC filing explained.
“This case is therefore a related or companion case to the prior Offolter action because it has been 'refiled after [the] dismissal' of plaintiffs' prior action and 'involv[es] the identical legal issue in the same or similar factual setting as one previously dismissed,'” the FTC filing stated.
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
